Socialism: The Social Experiment


Let’s talk about socialism. For this, allow me to use an analogy. You go to the city pound, where you see one dog after another in their tiny little cages. They appear sad, shaking, and perhaps even hungry. You do not really question the conditions of the pound; you merely want to rescue them all. After all, you love animals.

You pick a dog out and open the gate; the dog rushes to your arms. You provide this dog with smiles and love; you take it home and feed it. This dog remains timid for the first couple of weeks until it becomes utterly loyal to you.

What just happened? Well, the dog loves you because it thinks you were the one who freed him. Then you reward it for appreciative behavior with both love and food. Ultimately though, that dog is not free at all. The dog depends on you, but you have merely replaced a smaller, colder cage with a much nicer cage.

The dog is essentially your slave. Sure, you may indeed take good care of it, and you may even love it. However, if the dog steps out of line, you will keep that dog submitted to your will. That dog depends on you for shelter, food, healthcare, direction, information, etc.

Over time, the dog appreciates what you give it, but it also comes to expect it. Dependence and Classical Conditioning are the key components of this example here. The idea of Classical Conditioning is brought up to demonstrate that the dog’s false reality had become hardwired over time.

During the 1890s Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov was looking at salivation in dogs in response to being fed when he noticed that his dogs would begin to salivate whenever he entered the room, even when he was not bringing them food. Pavlov experimented with this idea and found that hardwired reactions can, in fact, be learned.

What do you call training or adapting something to live in a human environment to be useful to humans? Over time, some animals become gentler and submit to human instruction—what is called domestication. In this process, an entire animal species evolves to become naturally accustomed to living among and interacting with humans.

This happens through the process of feeding, housing, and sometimes beating down a wild animal. Once an animal submits, you breed it with another animal that has also submitted, find the subordinate offspring, and breed them down to the desired result. Now ask yourself, what happens to the dogs that refuse their cages and refuse their treatment? You guessed it; they are put down.

This is where we shift the conversation to the idea that I am not talking about dogs. I am talking about people. People who have been shoved in their cages and forced to accept it for what they are told it is. These ideas are hardwired into them, and they defend their masters unconditionally because they rely solely on their master’s giving. Understand that what I am about to cover will make some of you extremely angry, especially those who subscribe to socialism.

Sure, we could use the analogy of “feeding the bears” or any other host of metaphors, but that will not let a significant portion of the population truly understand what the point refers to.

Let us use association while we cover some basic facts. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party’s support of black civil and political rights. The Democratic Party identified itself as the “white man’s party” and demonized the Republican Party as being “Negro dominated,” even though whites were in control (PBS, 2002).

Most blacks in America voted Republican after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. Blacks could not even attend the Democratic conventions in any official capacity until 1924 (Blacks and the Democratic Party, 2008). Many people forget that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech was actually an attempt to push Kennedy (a Democrat) to move the needle on civil rights. So how in the world could a majority of an entire race within the boundaries of a nation turn their backs on the fundamental principles they held so dear just years prior? How could leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton lead their people in the opposite direction of where Dr. King wanted everyone to go? Power? Money?

So think about it and ask yourself: if Dr. King was really on to something, how is this great nation not filled with highly educated black conservatives? That is the answer, though. Today, it seems that ONLY the intellectual and highly educated black people are conservative (not necessarily Republican). This is not a coincidence.

What happened? Many black people fell in love with Democrats because they thought Democrats were the ones who “saved the day,” forgetting, of course, that it has always been Conservatives who championed equality and encouraged self-reliance and independence. The Democrats sold the idea that self-reliance and independence were bad things. Then Democrats rewarded the black people for their appreciative behavior with money, shelter, and food (and many other social programs). Ultimately though, these blacks are not free at all. More to the point, anyone who accepted these programs was no longer free. Instead, they have become dependent on these social programs, and their chains have merely been replaced with a small cages. Expand on this idea for a second and realize that I am not only addressing the black population. This means this nation is filled with slaves of all colors and creeds.

If you think that any of what I just said is somehow exaggerated, then, by all means, check out the following video.

The government-run education system has done little to address these ideas. In many ways, it has perpetuated the problem and reinforced the “necessity” of the programs. Meanwhile, few people are really free. They are dependent. The sad part is that the government aims to keep it this way because it equates to power. The more reliant someone is on the aid provided, the more submissive they will be to the person or group providing that aid.

Two massive swings in history shifted the majority of blacks to the Democrat party. This is ironic, especially when you consider the opening example of this article. The first was FDR’s social experiment with the “New Deal.” Essentially, this was giving money to people via social programs. The second was when President Lyndon Johnson declared a “war on poverty,” saying “compassionate government” was the road to prosperity for poor people (Poverty Programs Create Welfare Addiction, 2011). This, of course, has proven to be a complete and highly flawed idea. We know this to be fact-based on numerous data and the basic logic that addiction cannot be cured by providing excessive amounts of dope to the addicted.

Now you need to understand that the previously stated is merely an example of the overall whole. Once again, it is not just blacks; those who have fallen victim are of every race, color, and creed. It is not hard to imagine why. The promises for these exchanges are usually fantastic, and we often do not want to hear that some things are too good to be true when our government makes such promises. But how many of their pledges are hollow? We do not want to face reality concerning the fact that all things must come to an end. But find me something that the government has built that endures.

Is it logically equal or fair that over 49% of the population is partaking in or abusing a system that provides money and benefits for doing absolutely nothing? Meanwhile, the remaining population is forced to work and provide for the first half. We see a continual expansion in the size of government by increasing the number of laws and regulations necessary to collar the benefit programs being instated. Meanwhile, people from all over the world travel here to get their hands on the free benefits. This is real. Someone actually thought this was a good idea!

Imagine a world WITHOUT entitlements or false benefits for a second. We would have a smaller government where excess money would line the pockets of those who produce because the government would not feel it necessary to rob domestic companies. Criminal immigration would no longer be an issue because people would come to America for the right reasons instead of coming for benefits. Americans could once again embrace immigrants accordingly. There would cease to be an entire class of entitlement abusers or even generational reliance on government assistance. People could afford healthcare and amass and retain their wealth because the government would not need to steal it from the middle class. Could it work? It has before, so where are these ideas being explored in academia?

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Even children can comprehend this, and the idea has even been a central theme for some of the most popular kids’ shows.

An example of this might be a children’s show called SpongeBob SquarePants. However, this is not your average kid’s show. There are many complex ideas that the program covers. In fact, one episode called “Can You Spare a Dime?” deals directly with the point of this article. In this episode, the character “Squidward” quits his job because he does not like what the boss says. The main character, SpongeBob, meets Squidward outside of the restaurant, insisting that if Squidward ever needs anything, he can turn to him for help.

Keeping in mind that Squidward decided to quit, it is not long before he is homeless, begging for money, and living on the streets. SpongeBob sees this and decides to do what he believes is the noble thing and takes Squidward into his own home to take of him until he can look for a new job and get back on his feet. At first, Squidward is very appreciative and promises that just one or two nights is all that will be necessary to get himself back on his feet again.

Then the scene flashes forward to well beyond a week. One night, Squidward continues to call on SpongeBob for water, blankets, lights, etc., all while Spongebob is trying to sleep and all things that Squidward could have gotten up to get himself. The scene ends with SpongeBob falling down the stairs. Spongebob’s pet, Gary, tries to tell SpongeBob that Squidward is taking advantage of him, but SpongeBob is in denial and refuses to hear such words. Many months later, Squidward became utterly dependent upon SpongeBob, turning Spongebob into his personal servant (Nickelodeon, 2002).

Is this not what has occurred in this nation today? It appears that much of this nation has become dependent on their party or the government and has more or less turned it into their personal servant. However, this works in the government’s (and party’s) favor because they understand that these people will continue to vote for them regardless of how much liberty they take away. They know this because they understand these people need their stuff that now only the government can provide. The government sells the idea with phrases like “global village” or “global ideals,” etc. Don’t be confused. They are selling socialism.

Let us face reality for a second. There will never be a global village of like-minded people until some alien race decides to attack the planet. Neighbors cannot even get along. People of similar faiths cannot even get along. People under the same flag cannot even get along. For crying out loud, people from different branches of the same organization cannot even get along. There will always be infighting; there will always be war.

People often say things like, “Look at the children; they get along regardless of color or gender.” That is true; kids do not see color or gender until they understand differences. When people talk about children being born without prejudice, they are also talking about someone who literally thinks the world disappears when you put their hands over their eyes. So, please do us a favor and return to reality for the rest of this discussion.

Socialism and communism cannot work for a couple of fundamental reasons; there will always be a leader; nowhere in nature do we find utopian equality; and even these lovely children that are so peaceful will fight over the dumbest reasons (like blowing on them, or pointing at them, and having a better lunch). It is similar to the idea that murder has been illegal since the beginning of civilization, and we have yet to figure out how to stop it or even slow it down. Even our government continues to engage in the practice while hypocritically saying that citizens cannot engage in it. The point is that these ideas cannot and do not work, which means that the programs that emulate them (like socialism) also cannot and do not work. It is the human factor at play.

What is the point of these Social Programs? It is about power. Not just any power, though. It is about acquiring YOUR power. You trade your power for their programs. Self-reliance is a gift, not a burden. Fundamental skills are a gift, not a burden. These are gifts of power that so many are squandering away.

The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive ‘policies’ and ‘Plans’ of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word ‘socialism,’ but what else can one call it?” – H.G. Wells The New World Order 1939

Understand that you might be under their control. It is classical conditioning at its finest. “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have.” Richard Salent, former president, CBS News

It is so simple; even the children can figure this out. The problem is that the adults and the public education system are mentally beating the truth out of them. The only way to break free is to explore ideas the government is telling you to avoid. Ideas like the ones you are reading in this article. Ideas like the ones Martin Luther King Jr talked about. Ideas like the ones Thomas Jefferson talked about.

True, there are always exceptions to any rule. People get sick or disabled, but how often are these programs abused? What did people do before these entitlements? Should such programs be so easy to receive? If such aid was difficult to acquire, at some point, would someone try to find an easier way to acquire their assistance?

Is it fair? Let us pretend you worked hard and saved up to buy a new flat-screen television. You take your hard-earned money to the store and purchase the TV. You get it home, unwrap it, and set it up. You sit back in your chair, turn it on and browse the channels. As you browse, you stumble across a news report showing that the government is giving out the same television you bought to those with no money. Are you happy about this? Sure, everyone wants equally, but not everyone works equally.

In reference to a joke, we find real clarity. Imagine taking your children trick or treating on Halloween. The kids put in the effort to dress up their best; they walked up and down the streets, strutting their stuff and trying to be scary for those participating. Finally, you come to a door with a sign above that reads, “Knock at your own risk.” The kids knock on the door, and a man comes out, grabs the bag of candy, and immediately takes half of the candy. You restrain yourself long enough to ask why in the world he would do such a thing. His response: “I’m taking this candy to give to those who can’t be out trick or treating tonight.”

People often try to debate the merits of socialism with programs such as unemployment. This is invalid, considering that programs like this are insurance programs that cannot be used indefinitely. That being said, if true social programs such as social security, welfare, etc., were similar in the idea that they ran out, there would be a substantial reduction in resistance to such programs.

Socialism is NOT the answer. Socialism is a poison. In fact, there are two definitions I would like to share with you regarding socialism. I want you to really understand these because it is important to know what you, your friends, or even some of your family may subscribe to.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (socialism, n.d.).

Socialism: a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism (socialism, n.d.).

Communism: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.), and there is no privately owned property (communism, n.d.).

Today, it appears the goal is a global communist state. Is that too farfetched?

To clarify for my socially oriented friends: I am not saying that all programs that help those in need are harmful. I am simply saying that revisiting, reforming, and flat-out overhauling such programs is beyond needed at this point. This perpetual state of reliance has to stop!